V K CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Agriculture, by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Deputy Director (Horticulture), Durg to the office of Chhattisgarh Agriculture Training Academy, Raipur.

(2.) The indisputable facts, in brief, for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Director (Horticulture) at Durg. According to the petitioner, the son of the petitioner was selected for the course in National Defence Academy (for short "the NDA") and he had to join the said course at Khadakwasala (Pune). In order to escort his son to the NDA, the petitioner applied for casual leave for the period from 11-1-2011 to 14-1-2011 before the Collector, Durg. During the said leave period, the impugned order dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure P/1) has been passed transferring the petitioner from Durg to Raipur and in place of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 was posted from Jagdalpur to Durg.

(3.) Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that in spite of the fact that the concerned authority had knowledge of being the petitioner on leave till 14-1-2011, by order dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure P/2) relieved the petitioner ex parte to join at the new place of posting. The respondent No. 3 though was posted at Jagdalpur joined his duties at Durg within a short span of two hours, which is not at all possible. The petitioner, after returning from Pune, came to know that he has been transferred and in his place, the respondent No. 3 has joined. The petitioner also received a show cause notice dated 13-1-2011 (Annexure P/4) from the office of the Director, Directorate of Horticulture and Regional Forestry, Chhattisgarh, to the effect that why the petitioner remained absent from his duties unauthorizedly and also directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of three days, failing which, it was proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The impugned transfer order has been passed in existence of model code of conduct, as is evident from the press note dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure P/5). Even the impugned order has been issued with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioner and to accommodate the respondent No. 3 and the same was against the transfer policy dated 22-6-2010 (Annexure P/6) also.